RE: SETUP WIZARD FOR CYGWIN?XFREE

[Suhaib Siddiqi <ssiddiqi at inspirepharm dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:27 AM
> To: Ralf Habacker
> Cc: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
> Subject: AW: SETUP WIZARD FOR CYGWIN?XFREE
> 
> Ralf Habacker wrote:
> 
> > in some points I agree with you, I have added some necessary
> libs like
> > png,tiff,gif,zlib from a current cygwin distribution because for
> preventing
> > of version conflicts.
> 
> 
> Ralf, why did you do this?  We've already gone over this -- and,
> given
> the deference I have given the xfree team w.r.t. defending
> Suhaib's
> position on libfreetype, changing my xpm package which predated
> the
> xfree version, etc, I expect reciprocal respect from you guys.
> 
> Why are you forking my cygwin packages?

Ok now Ralf,

You are going to cause a lot of confusions with providing different versions
of XPM, libtif, libpng and libjpeg etc.  I am 100% sure you can use the
libraries from current distributions from Cygwin and Xfree86.  It will
create a big mess down the road, and I am pretty sure maintainers of Cygwin
and Xfree86 will not like it.  The best way of developing and supporting a
package is to port your code to use the libraries from these packages
(Cygwin and XFree86).

Suhaib


> 
> If you are worried about version conflicts, there is no need.  Now
> that
> the early growing pains with dlls (the infamous dll-naming thread
> on
> cygwin-apps, the libfoo.dll to cygfoo.dll transition, the .dll.a
> convention) are behind us, the only time dll names in the main
> distribution will change is when the ABI/API changes -- which
> would
> require relink/recompile anyway.
> 
> AND in those cases, the old DLLs will continue to be supplied --
> take a
> look inside the current readline-4.2 binary tarball.  You'll see
> /usr/bin/cygreadline4.dll (from the 4.1 dist) AND
> /usr/bin/cygreadline5.dll (from the 4.2 dist).  You'll see
> /usr/lib/libreadline.dll.a which is the import lib for
> cygreadline5, so
> that all new progs will use the new dll.  BUT, older progs will
> continue
> to work because the old dll is THERE.
> 
> There is no need to distribute copies yourself -- and in fact,
> that is
> harmful.  Please don't do it.  Did you even read this message?
> 
> ----------------------
> Re: AW: ask for delivering cygwin 1.1.8 with kde 1.1.2
> 
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-06/msg00057.html
> 
> 
> I think we're slowly converging on a system in which:
>    when a library is updated so that the new dll is not backwards
> compatible (that is, the DLL name changes to represent an ABI/API
> incompatibility), then we try to insure continued operation for a
> reasonable time.  "reasonable" is open to interpretation.
> 
> There are two ways to do this:
> 
> 1) the new package contains the headers, import libs, DLL's and
> static
> libs for the NEW library, AND contains the old DLL's.  This is
> what we
> chose to do with readline.
> 
> 2) or the incompatible library is released with a different
> package
> name.  However, since in all likelihood, the new package will
> contain
> files that conflict with the old package, the old package should
> be
> simultaneously updated to a new *version*, that contains only the
> DLL's
> -- since the names are different, those won't conflict with the
> DLL's in
> the new package.
> 
> In effect, both options are the same.  1) is simpler, and easier
> for us
> volunteer maintainers.  2) makes it optional whether the use wants
> to
> download a bunch of (useless?) old dll's, and is more in line with
> the
> way most linux distributions handle it.
> ----------------------
> 
> Now, I realize there are reasons for the cygwin1.dll-1.1.8 thing
> and the
> cygwin1.dll-post-1.3.2-snapshot thing.  That's different.  I'm
> complaining about the duplicate distribution of stable dll's.
> Just as
> Suhaib was justified in complaining about Xpm.dll, I feel
> justified in
> this.
> 
> Of course, it's all GPL -- I can't stop you.  But I really believe
> that
> duplicate distribution will only cause trouble down the road.
> 
> Unless, of course, you want to volunteer to take over
> maintainership of
> those packages (zlib, libpng, libtiff, libjpeg, libjbig).  That
> too is a
> possibility -- I am looking for somebody to take over...
> 
> --Chuck